^ H.  Sp^ep 


'TP>e  Credit  t^ob‘\l(ep 
Robbery 


Return  this  book  on  or  befo^  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


/f 


The  Credit  Mobilier  Robbery 


LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

SPEECH 


HON.  MILTON  SPEER, 

OF  FENISTS  YL  V A.Fri^, 

DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


FEBRUARY  27,  1873 


WASHINGTON: 

F.  & J.  RIVES  & GEO.  A.  BAILEY, 
REPORTERS  AND  PRINTERS  OP  THE  DEBATES  OP  CONGRESS, 

1873. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archlve.org/detalls/credltmoblllerroOOspee 


3i'-i 


Resolution  of  Censure  of  Hon.  W,  D.  Kelley. 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  R.  M.  SPEER, 


Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  27,  1873. 


‘-0  The  House  having  under  consideration  the  report 

from  the  select  Committee  on  Alleged  Bribery  of 
Members,  Mr.  Speer  offered  the  following: 

Whereas  it  is  shown  by  the  report  of  the  select 
committee  of  the  House  to  investigate  charges  of 
alleged  bribery  of  members  by  Oakes  Ames  and 
others,  that  William  D.  Kelley,  a member  of  Con- 
gress from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  did  receive, 
while  a member  of  this  House,  from  Oakes  Ames 
the  sum  of  $329  on  the  23d  day  of  June,  18(38,  and  the 
further  sum  of  $750  in  September,  1868,  as  dividends 
on  stock  of  the  Credit  Mobilier  of  America,  without 
having  paid  anything  therefor;  and  whereas  the 
said  dividends  arose  from  a dishonest  contract  and 
arrangement  between  the  said  Credit  Mobilier  and 
the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  which  com- 
pany  was  and  is  largely  indebted  to  the  United 
States,  resulting  in  a gross  fraud  and  wrong  upon 
the  Government:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  for  the  receipt  and  use  as  aforesaid 
of  the  said  Credit  Mobilier  dividends,  William  D. 
Kelley  deserves  and  hereby  receives  the  unquali- 
fied censure  of  this  House. 

Mr.  SPEER.  Mr.  Speaker,  I trust  I am 
not  insensible  to  the  gravity  of  this  hour  and 
its  duties;  and  I may  hope  that  those  who 
know  me  believe  that  no  feeling  of  party  or 
faction  has  prompted  the  action  that  I have 
taken  here  this  day.  I declare  before  the  House 
and  the  country  that  I have  taken  it  with  deep 
regret.  For  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
[Mr.  Kelley]  affected  by  the  resolution  which 
I have  felt  it  my  duty  to  offer,  I have  personally 
no  unkind  feelings.  I have  known  him  by 
name  for  years  as  a prominent  member  of  this 
House  and  as  an  influential  member  of  his 
party ; and  I would  rather  let  my  right  arm 
fall  from  my  shoulder  than  be  the  instrument 
here  or  anywhere  of  doing  him  intentional 
injustice.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I have  a duty  to 
perform  higher  than  personal  friendships, 
higher  than  my  regard  for  personal  feelings ; 


and  I rise  here  this  hour  to  perform  it,  regret- 
ting that  it  involves  the  dishonor  of  a Repre- 
sentative of  my  State — regretting  that  the  proud 
State  in  whose  bosom  I have  been  reared,  and 
upon  whose  soil  I expect  to  be  buried,  bows 
her  head  in  shame  and  grief  over  the  evidence 
now  before  the  House  and  the  country,  with 
its  exposure  of  the  conduct  of  her  Represent- 
ative. 

My  colleague  says  he  has  been  charged  with 
a crime  and  is  here  on  trial  unheard.  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  investigation  was  ordered  on 
your  motion  and  he  has  been  heard  from 
his  own  lips  and  with  great  patience,  fairness, 
and  even  tenderness,  by  the  committee.  He 
had  the  process  of  the  United  States  to  sum- 
mon any  and  every  witness  he  desired,  and 
through  an  investigation  covering  six  weeks, 
with  the  power  of  the  Government  at  his  back, 
he  has  borne  an  almost  death-like  silence. 

But  who  is  his  accuser,  if  he  is  here  this 
hour  upon  trial  ? If  he  is  to  be  convicted,  will 
it  not  be  on  the  testimony  of  a member  of  this 
House  of  his  own  party,  strengthened  and  forti- 
fied as  it  is  by  his  own  evasions  and  prevarica- 
tions? No,  sir;  I would  condemn  no  man 
unheard;  but  when  opportunity  has  been  given 
for  six  long  weeks,  and  after  as  fair  and  impar- 
tial a committee  as  was  ever  appointed  by  this 
House  have  sat  with  open  doors  until  nothing 
else  was  to  be  offered,  until  the  last  hours  of 
the  session,  it  is  unjust  to  them,  it  is  unjust  to 
truth,  to  say  he  has  not  been  heard.  If  he 
had  witnesses,  who  are  they?  Where  are 


S 008403 


4 


they?  The  world  has  never  heard  of  them 
and  it  never  will. 

My  colleague  complains  about  my  reference 
to  him  in  a brief  speech  I made  this  morning. 
1 did  not  know  whether  he  was  in  the  Hall  or 
not,  but  I do  know  if  he  was  not  here  it  was 
his  duty  to  be  here.  But  the  complaint  is 
strange,  for  when  I now  offer  him  the  floor  he 
declines  to  speak.  I did  make  reference  to 
him,  as  I also  made  reference  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Dawes]  and  to 
my  colleague  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Sco- 
field ;]  and  in  that  reference  I did  what  I 
thought  a simple  act  of  justice,  due  to  my 
convictions  upon  the  evidence,  to  the  cause  of 
truth  and  due  to  these  two  gentlemen.  I said 
that  I believed  upon  the  case  as  presented 
they  were  innocent,  and  I would  vote  for  no 
resolution  of  expulsion  or  censure  of  either  of 
them.  I certainly  had  no  political  or  personal 
motive  in  making  such  a declaration.  They 
are  both  active  members  of  the  Republican 
party,  one  of  them  prominent  as  a leader  of 
that  party  in  my  own  State ; and  if  I had 
been  governed  by  party  considerations  it 
would  have  been  my  party  interest  to  strike 
him  down,  or  at  least  to  keep  silence  where 
I could  not  justly  condemn. 

But  I trust,  Mr.  Speaker,  I shall  be  true  to 
my  own  sense  of  justice  and  of  right,  regardless 
of  whether  such  course  may  help  or  hurt  my 
party.  I am  not  the  slave  of  party.  I am  the 
Representative  of  my  people.  And,  sir,  I would 
feel  myself  unworthy  of  a seat  upon  this  floor 
if  I should  seek  here  or  elsewhere  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  just  indignation  of  the  people 
at  the  Credit  Mobilier  frauds  to  do  a wrong 
to  any  gentleman  whose  name  has  been  con- 
nected therewith. 

I have  asked  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania [Mr.  Kelley]  to  speak.  I have  asked 
him  to  have  his  friends  speak.  I have  made 
the  public  offer  here  that  he  might  haye,  as 
far  as  I could  give  it,  as  many  hours  for  public 
discussion  as  he  desired,  reserving  only  one 
hour  for  myself  to  close  debate.  That  offer 
was  declined,  and  I thought  in  a way  unworthy 
of  the  spirit  in  which  I made  it.  I have  yielded 
a part  of  my  hour  to  the  gentleman’s  friends 
who  desired  to  speak,  and  I now  propose 
briefly  and  fairly  to  review  the  evidence  as  it 


lies  printed  before  the  House.  The  commit- 
tee have  found  a special  verdict,  and  it  is  now 
for  this  high  court  of  the  people  to  enter  judg- 
ment upon  that  verdict. 

What  are  the  facts?  On  the  first  day  of 
this  session  the  Speaker  of  this  House  rose 
to  what  he  called  a “ question  of  the  highest 
privilege,”  and  after  stating  that  “ during  the 
recent  presidential  campaign  there  was  a wide- 
spread accusation  of  bribery  of  members  of 
this  House  to  perform  certain  legislative  acts 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad 
Company  by  presents  of  stock  in  a corpora- 
tion known  as  the  Credit  Mobilier,”  and  after 
stating  further  that  the  charge  embraced  him- 
self and  several  other  members,  among  them 
my  colleague,  [Mr.  Kelly,]  he  offered  a res- 
olution for  the  appointment  of  a committee  of 
investigation.  The  resolution  was  adopted, 
the  committee  appointed,  and  its  report  is  now 
before  us. 

Now,  as  my  colleague’s  name  was  mentioned 
by  the  Speaker  in  connection  with  this  charge 
on  December  2 last,  he  had  notice  then  that 
the  investigation  might  involve  him,  and  hence 
he  had  ample  time  for  preparation. 

What  does  the  report  find  to  be  the  facts  in 
reference  to  my  colleague?  I take  the  follow- 
ing from  page  7 : 

'"Mr.  William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania. 

“The  committee  find  from  the  evidence,  that  in  the 
early  part  of  the  second  session  of  the  Fortieth  Con- 
gress, and  probablv  in  December,  1867,  Mr.  Ames 
agreed  with  Mr.  Kelley  to  sell  him  ten  shares  of 
Credit  Mobilier  stock  at  parand  interest  from  July  1, 
1867.  Mr.  Kelley  was  not  then  prepared  to  pay  for 
the  stock,  and  Mr,  Ames  agreed  to  carry  the  stock 
for  him  until  he  could  pay  for  it.  On  the  3d  day  of 
January,  1868,  there  was  a dividend  of  eighty  per 
cent,  on  Credit  Mobilier  stock  in  Union  Pacific 
bonds.  Mr.  Ames  received  the  bonds,  as  the  stock 
stood  in  his  name,  and  sold  them  for  ninety-seven 
per  cent,  of  their  face.  In  June,  1868,  there  was  a 
cash  dividend  of  sixty  per  cent,,  which  Mr.  Ames 
also  received.  The  proceeds  of  the  bonds  sold,  and 
the  cash  dividends  received  by  Mr.  Ames,  amounted 
to  $1,376.  The  par  value  of  the  stock  and  in  rerest 
thereon  from  the  previous  July  amounted  to  $1,047  ; 
so  that,  after  paying  for  the  stock,  there  was  a 
balance  of  dividends  duo  Mr.  Kelley  of  $329.  On 
the  23d  day  of  June,  1868,  Mr.  Ames  gave  Mr.  Kel- 
ley a check  for  that  sum  on  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  Mr.  Kelley 
received  the  money  thereon. 

“ The  committee  find  that  Mr.  Kelley  then  under- 
stood that  the  money  he  thus  received  was  a balance 
of  dividends  due  him  after  paying  for  tho  stock. 

“ All  thesubsequentdividends  upon  tho  stock  were 
either  in  Union  Pacific  stock  or  bonds,  and  they 
were  all  received  by  Mr.  Ames.  In  Soi)tcmber,  1868, 
Mr.  Kelley  received  from  Mr.  Ames  $750  in  money, 
which  was  understood  between  them  to  bo  an  ad- 
vance to  bo  paid  out  of  dividends.  There  has  never 
been  any  adjustment  of  tho  matter  between  them, 
and  there  is  now  an  entire  variance  in  tho  testimony 


5 


of  the  two  men  as  to  what  the  transaction  between 
them  was  ; but  the  committee  aro  unanimous  in 
finding  the  focts  above  stated.  The  evidence  re- 
ported to  the  House  gives  some  subsequent  conver- 
sations and  negotiations  between  Mr.  Kelley  and 
Mr.  Ames  on  this  subject.  The  committee  do  not 
deem  it  material  to  refer  to  it  in  their  report.” 

There,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  committee  find  that 
Mr.  Kelley  received  in  June,  1808,  $329;  in 
September,  1868,  $750;  making  $1,079  in 
cash.  For  what?  Had  he  ever  invested  a 
dollar?  He  had  never  paid  a dollar  ; but  out 
of  only  two  dividends  he  had  become  the 
owner  of  ten  shares  of  Credit  Mobilier  stock 
worth  two  or  three  thousand  dollars,  and  had 
received  a check  of  $329,  which  he  put  in 
his  pocket  and  went  to  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
afterward,  and  upon  it  drew  the  money,  and, 
impatient  for  further  dividends,  and  although 
they  had  amounted  to  more  than  one  hundred 
per  cent,  from  January  to  June,  he  received 
from  Mr.  Ames  in  September  following  the 
further  sum  in  cash  of  $750  dollars,  which  the 
committee  finds  “was  understood  between 
them  to  be  an  advance  on  dividends.” 

Thus,  without  the  payment  of  a single  penny, 
Mr.  Kelley  had  received  from  Mr.  Ames,  out 
of  Credit  Mobilier  dividends,  in  about  six 
months,  $1,079  in  cash,  and  had  become  the 
owner  of  stock  worth  from  two  to  three  thou- 
sand dollars.  When  it  is  remembered  that 
these  enormous  dividends  were  paid — part  out 
of  the  money  and  proceeds  of  lands  given  by 
the  Government  to  the  Union  Pacific  Rail- 
road Company,  and  that  Mr.  Kelley  had  been 
a member  of  Congress  when  the  acts  were 
passed  granting  to  this  company  these  sub- 
sidies, this  House  and  the  country  will  need 
no  aid  from  me  to  enable  them  to  form  a cor- 
rect judgment  of  his  conduct. 

Now,  while  I agree  with  the  committee  in 
their  finding  of  the  facts,  I do  not  agree  with 
them  in  all  the  inferences  they  seem  to  draw 
from  those  facts.  After  finding  that  Mr.  Kel- 
ley had  never  paid  a dollar,  but  had  been  the 
receiver  of  $1,079  from  Mr.  Ames  in  the 
shape  of  dividends  and  advances,  they  say, 
page  8 : 

” The  committee,  therefore,  do  not  find,  as  to  the 
members  of  the  present  House  above  named,  that 
they  were  aware  of  the  object  of  Mr.  Ames,  or  that 
they  had  any  other  purpose  in  taking  this  stock 
than  to  make  a profitable  investment.  It  is  appar- 
ent that  those  who  advanced  their  money  to  pay  for 
their  stock  present  more  the  appearance  of  ordinary 
investors  than  those  who  did  not;  but  the  committee 
do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  find  any  corrupt  purpose  or 


knowledge  founded  upon  the  fact  of  non-payment 
alone.” 

Sir,  tell  me  what  kind  of  an  investment  that 
is  in  which  you  place  no  money.  Is  it  buying 
a house,  when  you  pay  nothing  for  it?  Or  is 
it  buying  bank  stock  when,  instead  of  paying 
money  for  it,  money  comes  to  you?  And  yet 
the  committee  attempt  to  draw  the  inference, 
gently,  I admit,  that  this  transaction  between 
Mr.  Ames  and  Judge  Kelley  was  an  invest- 
ment upon  the  part  of  Judge  Kelley  ! 

Let  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  call  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  what  the  committee  must  have  found 
before  they  drew  this  inference.  Mr.  Kelley 
was  sworn  before  them  as  a witness.  Oakes 
Ames  was  sworn  before  them  as  a witness. 
Those  two  witnesses  differ  radically  and  vio- 
lently in  their  statements  ; and  when  the  com- 
mittee find  in  substance  that  the  statements  of 
Oakes  Ames  are  true,  as  they  do  find,  it  fol- 
lows inevitably  they  must  find  that  Mr.  Kel- 
ley’s are  not  true.  Now,  what  does  Mr.  Kel- 
ley say  about  this  transaction  ? In  the  first 
place  the  committee  say  that  they  have  no  evi- 
dence that  Mr.  Kelley  knew  the  nature  of 
this  corporation.  As  to  that  I turn  to  page 
198  of  the  testimony,  where  we  find  Mr.  Kel- 
ley under  oath  stating  that — 

“At  this  distance  of  time  1 do  not  pretend  to  re- 
peat the  conversation  verbatim,  but  I remember  the 
substance  of  it  pretty  accurately.  Mr.  Ames  said 
to  me  that  while  that  was  a speculative  thing, 
he  felt  disposed  to  let  me  have  an  investment  which 
would  be  of  a better  character,  and  spoke  of  the 
Credit  Mobilier,  of  which  I thought  I knew  some- 
thing from  the  fact  that  it  was  chartered  by  my  own 
State  some  years  before  I became  a member  of  Con- 
gress, and  the  provisions  of  the  charter  of  which  I 
had  discussed  somewhat  with  my  professional 
brethren,  both  in  my  office  and  in  the  court-room 
while  waiting  for  trials  or  arguments.” 

Mr.  Kelley  is  a Pennsylvania  lawyer,  and 
was  a Pennsylvania  judge.  The  Credit  Mo- 
bilier is  a Pennsylvania  corporation  ; and  Mr. 
Kelley  swears  that  he  was  familiar  with  the 
provisions  of  its  charter  from  having  discussed 
it  with  his  profesional  brethren  in  the  court- 
room of  Philadelphia.  And  yet  the  commit- 
tee seem  to  intimate  that  this  lawyer,  this 
judge,  this  Pennsylvania  judge,  who  had  dis- 
cussed the  provisions  of  this  charter,  did  not 
know  what  they  were ; did  not  know  the 
powers  they  conferred  nor  the  uses  to  which 
the  charter  could  be  put. 

Mr.>  POLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  yield 
to  me  a moment  ? 


6 


Mr.  SPEEIt.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POLAND.  There  was  nothing  in  the 
charter  of  the  company  that  was  in  any  way 
wrong.  The  whole  difficulty  grew  out  of 
some  contracts  that  were  afterward  made. 

Mr.  S|^EER..  I understand  that.  What 
the  gentleman  from  Vermont  says  is  abstractly 
true  ; but  the  charter  was  one  of  those  anoma- 
lous things  that  too  often  crawl  through  the 
Pennsylvania  Legislature,  and  after  having 
been  passed  it  was  taken  to  New  York,  and 
there  bought,  I believe,  by  some  of  these  par- 
ties for  the  express  purpose  of  making  the  use 
of  it  which  has  been  made.  It  was  a charter 
of  almost  limitless  power,  authorizing  those 
operating  under  it  to  go  to  almost  any  place 
and  do  almost  anything.  It  was  just  the  charter 
these  Union  Pacific  railroad  men  needed.  It 
was  just  the  charter  that  no  honest  company 
would  want. 

Now,  I say  that  Judge  Kelley  knew  the  pro- 
visions of  that  charter.  He  knew  the  Legis- 
lature that  passed  it.  He  knew  there  was 
litigation  in  Pennsylvania  about  that  charter 
and  the  right  of  the  State  to  tax  the  dividends; 
and  yet  with  his  knowledge  of  all  these  things 
he  took  that  stock.  I may  say  here  that  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  brought  suit  four  or  five 
years  ago  to  recover  about  $1,000,000,  I think, 
as  tax  due  on  the  dividends  of  the  Credit 
Mobilier.  She  obtained  judgment  twice  in 
the  lower  court,  but  the  judgment  was  twice 
reversed  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  ; 
the  last  time  on  the  ground  that  the  Credit 
Mobilier  as  a corporation  did  not  earn  the 
dividends,  but  that  the  trustees  did. 

I refer  to  this,  not  to  criticise  the  action  of 
the  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania,  but  to  show 
how  notorious  the  facts  were.  l"therefore  deny 
the  correctness  of  the  inference  of  the  commit- 
tee as  to  the  knowledge  and  means  of  knowl- 
edge of  Mr.  Kelley.  I cannot  escape  the  con- 
viction that  he  did  know  all  about  it.  But  if  he 
had  not  knowledge  beforehand,  what  are  the 
members  of  this  House  to  think  of  a member 
of  Congress  who,  without  a turn  of  his  hand 
or  the  scrape  of  his  pen,  or  the  payment  of  a 
dollar,  by  some  magic  unknown  to  the  race  of 
ordinary  mortals,  came  into  possession  of 
$1,079  in  cash,  and  became  the  owner  of  ten 
shares  of  stock  worth  $3,000  more,  all  in  about 


six  months,  and  yet  did  not  know  what  kind 
of  a hen  was  laying  these  golden  eggs  1 Did 
not  Mr.  Kelley  know  that  it  must  be  a cor- 
rupt corporation  from  the  enormous  dividends 
that  were  being  so  rapidly  declared  and  which 
he  was  receiving?  Tell  me  that  a man  can 
stand  quietly  by,  in  this  age  and  in  this  land, 
and  receive  an  eighty  per  cent,  dividend  in 
January  and  a sixty  per  cent,  dividend  in 
June,  and  a seventy-five  per  cent,  dividend  in 
September,  and  not  know  or  at  least  not  have 
cause  to  suspect  that  the  corporation  which 
declared  them  was  corrupt  to  the  core ! I seek 
not  to  torture  the  evidence  ; but  this  case  so 
bristles  with  facts  pointing  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  I have  formed,  that  I cannot  escape 
it.  Who  can? 

What  further?  Mr.  Kelley  attempted  to 
turn  this  transaction  with  Mr.  Ames  into  a 
loan,  but  th&  committee  have  exploded  that 
idea  as  every  sensible  man  will  explode  it  on 
reading  the  testimony.  But  what  does  Mr. 
Kelley  say?  On  page  199  of  the  reported 
testimony  he  says: 

“Thus  ended  all  connection  of  mine  with  the  mat- 
ter. During  that  time,  nor  subsequently,  have  I re- 
ceived directly  or  indirectly  any  money,  stock  or 
bonds  as  dividends  of  the  Credit  Mobilier,  or  any 
interest  in  stock  of  Union  Pacific  railroad  or  bonds. 
I have  never  to  my  knowledge  seen  a share  of  the 
stock  in  Credit  Mobilier  or  in  the  Union  Pacific  Rail- 
road Company.” 

And  on  page  201  : 

'"Question.  The  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
Ames  resulted  in  an  agreement  on  your  part  to  take 
ten  shares? 

"Ansioer.  Yes,  sir;  and  I wish  it  to  be  distinctly 
understood  that  it  was  not  my  fault  that  I did  not 
get  it.  I supposed  I had  contracted  for  ten  shares 
of  stock. 

"Question.  Were  any  dividends  ever  paid  to  you 
on  it? 

"Anstoer.  No,  sir ; I received  nothing  from  it. 

"Question.  The  result  of  the  money  transaction  in 
reference  to  the  Credit  Mobilier  stock,  then,  was  that 
you  neither  paid  Mr.  Ames  anything  nor  received 
anything  on  that  account? 

"Answer.  Yes,  sir.” 

Now,  what  will  the  country  think  of  a mem- 
ber of  the  American  Congress  who  having 
taken  a check  from  Oakes  Ames  for  $329  to 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  this  House,  and  drawn 
the  money  upon  it,  and  having  received  in 
cash  from  Ames  $750,  both  sums  found  by  the 
committee  to  be  on  account  of  dividends  from 
the.  Credit  Mobilier,  now  states  on  oath  that 
he  never  saw,  or  touched,  or  received  a dollar 
from  the  Credit  Mobilier?  This  testimony 
was  given  before  Mr.  Ames  had  come  to  the 


7 


stand  for  the  second  time.  Mr.  Ames  at  first 
was  mild,  and  coy,  and  gentle  as  a maiden 
with  these  gentlemen  ; but  when  he  discovered 
that  they  intended  to  put  the  whole  respons- 
ibility of  this  transaction  upon  him  alone,  he 
gathered  himself  up,  and  shook  his  mane  like 
a lion,  and  came  back,  armed  with  a power 
that  struck  consternation  into  those  men  who 
were  trying  to  escape  by  putting  their  sins 
upon  him.  Here  is  the  evidence  ; on  page 
201  Mr.  Kelley  states : 

“ Question.  State  whether  the  borrowing  of  that 
thousand  dollars  frem  Mr.  Ames  had  any  connec- 
tion in  any  manner  with  the  Credit  Mobilier  stock? 

"‘Answer.  I am  here  reminded  of  what  Judge  Bing- 
ham said  on  the  uncertainty  of  speaking  of  what 
may  have  been  passing  in  a person’s  mind  so  long 
ago,  and  of  all  the  considerations  that  may  have 
entered  into  his  motives.” 

Now,  sir,  was  that  such  an  answer  as  the 
committee  and  this  House  had  a right  to  expect 
to  a plain  question  involving  the  character  of 
this  transaction  and  the  motives  and  under- 
standing of  my  colleague  in  reference  to  it  ? 

The  House  will  observe  that  what  I am 
reading  here  is  the  sworn  testimony  of  the 
witness,  Judge  Kelley,  himself. 

But  what  does  Mr.  Oakes  Ames  say  about 
that  transaction.  This,  on  page  298  is  the 
account  between  Mr.  Kelley  and  himself. 

It  is  as  follows : 

The  memorandum  from  which  witness  testified  in 
regard  to  Mr.  Kelley  is  as  follows  : 

W.  D.  K.  Dr. 

1868.  To  ten  shares  stock  Credit  Mobilier 

of  America $1,000 

Interest 47 

Jan.  19.  To  cash 329 

$1,376 


1868.  By  dividend  of  bonds  Union  Pacific 
railroad  $1,000,  at  80  per  cent,  less 

3 per  cent $776 

June  17.  By  dividend  collected  from  your 

account 600 

1868.  $1,376 

Sept.  29.  To  cash  loan 700 

” Question.  Do  you  think  Mr.  Kelley  understood, 

when  he  received  that  check  from  you,  that  that 

was  the  money  he  was  borrowing  from  you  ? 

“Answer,  I did  not  think  so;  you  can  judge  as 
well  as  I can  of  it. 

“Question.  Was  anything  said  about  its  being  a 
loan  ? 

“ Answer.  Not  that  I know  of. 

“ Question.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Kelley  after  that  in  reference  to  this  transac- 
tion in  Credit  Mobilier  stock  ? 

“Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  inquired  about  the  divi- 
dends, whether  there  were  any  more.  I told  him 
there  would  not  be  any  more  until  this  suit  was 
settled.” 


In  October  or  November,  1868,  suit  was 
brought  against  this  corporation  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  the  dividends  on  the  stock  which 
Oakes  Ames  held  as  trustee  ceased.  Mr. 
Kelley  then  comes  to  Mr.  Ames  and  inquires, 
“Brother  Ames,  are  there  any  more  dividends 
due?”  “ What  has  become  of  the  Credit  Mo- 
bilier?” “A  suit  is  pending,  Mr.  Kelley,  and 
you  cannot  get  any  more  dividends  until  that 
suit  is  determined.”  Now,  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Butler]  says  that  Ames  is 
a truthful  man,  and  the  committee  have  found 
his  statement  as  to  this  transaction  to  be  true. 
Then  what  are  we  to  conclude  ? It  is  that  when 
that  suit  pending  in  the  supreme  court  of  Penn- 
sylvania shall  be  determined,  if  favorable  to 
Mr.  Ames,  the  dividends  are  to  be  paid  to  Mr. 
Kelley  as  before;  or  rather,  that  in  such 
event  they  would  have  been  paid  if  this  inves- 
tigation had  not  been  had. 

Now,  did  not  Mr.  Kelley  know  that  the 
Credit  Mobilier  was  a fraudulent  corporation? 
Did  he  say  “I  wash  my  hands  of  it;  I have 
been  misled;  the  people  and  the  Government 
are  being  wronged?”  No,  nothing  of  the  kind. 
All  he  said  was,  “ What  has  become  of  the 
dividends?”  I read  from  page  299: 

” Question.  Did  you  understand  from  that  conver- 
sation that  he  considered  himself  entitled  to  further 
dividends  if  there  were  any  more  made? 

“ Ansxeer.  I suppose  so. 

“Question.  You  continued  to  hold  that  stock  for 
him  ? 

“Ansxoer.  I did;  and  that  is  all  Mr.  Kelley  has 
received  out  of  it,  the  $329.” 

And  now  what  lesson  do  you  learn  from  this 
prevarication,  evasion  and  denial  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Kelley?  Are  not  evasions  and  denials 
of  this  character  in  court  always  taken  against 
the  man  who  makes  them?  Is  it  not  right  and 
just  for  the  law  to  presume  that  if  a man  will 
not  tell  the  truth  it  is  because  the  truth  will 
hurt  him?  What  motive  can  Mr.  Kelley 
have  for  withholding  a plain  statement  of  the 
facts  ? It  is  because  the  truth  was  damaging, 
and  he  would  rather — I will  not  say  willfully — 
swear  an  untruth ; but  he  seems  to  prefer  the 
path  of  evasion  to  the  plain  road  of  frank 
statement. 

Why  deny  the  ownership  of  the  stock  ? Why 
deny  the  receipt  of  these  dividends,  unless 
there  was  guilty  knowledge?  What  motive  on 
earth  could  my  colleague  have  to  deny  the 


8 


ownership  of  honestly  acquired  property?  If 
you  own  bank  stock,  and  your  money  has  been 
paid  for  it,  why  deny  it,  and  deny  it  under 
oath? 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  know  very  well  that  if  ray 
coat  was  stolen  and  it  was  found  in  your  pos- 
session— or  I will  reverse  the  illustration,  and 
say  that  if  your  coat  was  stolen  and  it  was 
found  in  my  possession,  and  when  arrested  with 
it  on  my  back  and  asked  where  I got  it  I 
should  prevaricate,  and  say  I found  it  here  or 
got  it  there,  or  refuse  to  account  for  my  pos- 
session of  it,  you  know  what  is  the  presump- 
tion of  the  law  and  of  common  sense.  It  is 
that  I got  it  unlawfully,  or  that  I got  it  from 
some  person  who  had  got  it  unlawfully.  In 
other  words,  that  I was  ashamed  or  afraid  to 
say  how,  or  where,  or  from  whom  I had  got  it. 

Why,  then,  when  the  managers  of  the  Union 
Pacific  railroad,  which  had  been  richly  en- 
dowed by  the  action  of  Congress,  were  rob- 
bing the  Government  through  the  Credit 
Mobilier  corporation,  and  when  that  plunder 
and  spoil  were  being  divided  among  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  whose  duty  it  was 
to  protect  their  interests,  why  should  any  one 
of  them  when  charged  with  sharing  the  spoil 
seem  to  attempt  for  a moment  to  withhold  the 
whole  truth?  Would  not  his  interest,  and  his 
honor,  his  name,  and  the  name  and  the  honor 
of  his  family  and  friends  alike,  induce  him  to 
state  the  truth,  if  the  truth  would  help  him  ? 

But  what  further  have  we  here  ? This  evi- 
dence presents  another  fact,  which  is  that  not 
only  did  Mr.  Kelley  prevaricate  before  this 
committee,  not  only  did  he  attempt  to  conceal 
the  truth,  but  he  virtually  attempted  to  get 
Mr.  Ames  to  conceal  it  under  oath.  He  feared 
that  his  own  concealment  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient, and  if  Mr.  Ames  is  to  be  believed,  Mr. 
Kelley  attempted  to  get  him  to  swear  to  what 
was  not  true. 

Do  I state  it  too  strongly?  Blot  out  my 
words,  then,  and  take  the  words  of  Oakes 
Ames.  I quote  his  sworn  testimony,  page 
360; 

" Ansroer.  Mr.  Kelley  spoke  to  me  about  this 
matter  and  said  he  called  it  a loan ; he  said  he  had 
stated  it  was  a loan,  and  then  wanted  to  pay  me 
the  amount.  I told  him  that  I did  not  so  consider 
it;  that  I had  let  him  have  $750  on  account  of  the 
dividends  that  I held.  He  wanted  to  call  it  a loan 
and  wanted  to  repay  me.” 


Almost  five  years  after  he  had  received  the 
money,  when  this  investigating  committee  was 
hard  after  him  1 

“He  said  he  would  give  me  a check  on  his  bank  and 
wanted  to  know  when  he  should  date  it.  I told  him 
I did  not  know  that  it  would  make  any  difference, 
and  he  gave  me  a check  for  $1,000.  That  was  before 
any  testimony  had  been  given,  but  after  the  invest- 
igation Was  ordered.  I tore  the  check  in  two  and 
handed  it  back  to  him  and  called  it  a payment,” 

Mr.  Kelley  had  got  from  Mr.  Ames  $1,079, 
which,  with  interest,  would  have  amounted  to 
over  $1,300.  Hence,  if  it  was  a loan,  why 
not  pay  all,  if  any  ? 

What  a scene  that  must  have  been — the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr. 
Kelley]  and  his  honorable  friend  from  Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr.  Ames]  concocting  in  the  dark 
hour  of  the  night  a story  to  cover  up  a trans- 
action of  which  they  were  both  ashamed  ! 

I say,  then,  I can  come  to  no  other  con- 
clusion upon  this  testimony  than  that  the  find- 
ings of  fact  by  the  committee  are  justified, 
amply,  overwhelmingly  justified,  by  the  evi- 
dence. For  belief  is  not  a matter  of  choice ; 
we  must  believe  upon  evidence,  and  some- 
times the  most  unpleasant  convictions  are 
forced  upon  the  conscience.  So  here  I take 
no  pleasure  in  stating  my  conviction  formed 
upon  this  testimony ; but  there  are  the  facts 
spread  before  this  House  and  the  country,  and 
there  is  not  water  enough  in  the  Potomac  to 
wash  away  this  record  which  Mr.  Kelley  and 
Mr.  Ames  have  made  for  themselves. 

No  charges  of  persecution  can  be  brought 
against  the  honorable  committee  or  against 
this  House.  These  men,  if  condemned,  are 
self-condemned  ; they  are  their  own  accusers  ; 
and  upon  the  record  which  they  have  made 
for  themselves  in  this  case  they  are  now  being 
tried  by  this  House  in  the  presence  of  the 
country,  and  by  that  record  the  case  will  be 
determined. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  been  told  that  the  mob 
are  crying,  “ Crucify  him  I ” “ Crucify  him ! ” 
No,  sir,  it  is  not  the  mob,  and  that  is  not  the 
cry.  It  is  the  people  who  make  the  cry,  and 
the  cry  is,  “ Punish  the  men  who  have  been 
robbing  the  Government,  and  punish  the  men 
who  have  been  sharing  the  spoil.”  To  that 
cry  this  House  of  the  people  should  respond, 
“Amen  1 ” 

The  American  people  demand  no  victim  ; 


9 


they  are  just  and  brave  and  generous;  but 
having  been  plundered  for  long  years  by  these 
corporations  of  immense  power  and  wealth, 
they  are  trying  now,  Samson-like,  to  burst  the 
bands  that  have  bound  them.  They  are  at- 
tempting to  reassert  their  mastery  over  their 
servants  and  to  teach  their  Representatives 
that  they  have  other  duties  to  perform  than  to 
aid  by  their  influence  and  legislation  here 
schemes  of  personal  profit. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I am  satisfied  upon  this  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  the  finding  of  the 
committee ; and  being  thus  satisfied  I should 
be  false  to  myself,  to  the  people  who  have 
sent  me  here,  and  to  my  duty  at  this  hour,  if  I 
faltered  for  onefmoment.  I believe  Mr.  Kelley 
is  guilty  as  the  committee  find  him,  of  receiv- 
ing these  enormous  dividends  of  the  Credit 
Mobilter  without  consideration  ; and  I further 
believe  he  had  every  reason  to  know  they 
were  corruptly  declared  and  were  paid  to  him 
with  the  expectation  of  securing  his  friendly 
interest  as  a member  of  Congress  in  any  meas- 
ures that  related  to  that  fraudulent  corporation. 
Thus  believing,  I recognize  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  House  over  the  offender  and  I regard 
the  offense  as  deserving  its  unqualified  cen- 
sure. The  American  Congress  should  be  the 
political  sanctuary  of  the  people ; and  those 
who  compose  it,  in  fidelity  to  their  high  trust, 
should  oppose  and  denounce  all  schemes  of 
plunder.  Popular  liberty  is  here  on  trial,  and 
the  great  question  of  the  hour  is,  shall  the 
people  rule  this  land  or  shall  they  surrender 
it  to  the  greed  and  corruption  of  mammoth 
corporations? 

But  it  is  said  that  these  gentlemen  impli- 
cated in  the  Credit  Mobilier  swindle  have 
heretofore  borne  good  characters.  I admit 
that  in  a case  of  doubt  good  character  is  a 
fact  to  be  considered  by  the  triers.  But  tell 
me  what  is  character  worth  against  clearly- 
proved  guilt?  If  a man  confesses  himself 
that  he  has  committed  a crime,  does  the  fact 
that  he  has  previously  borne  a good  name 
prove  that  he  did  not  commit  it  ? When  the 
check  is  produced  by  the  Sergeant-at- Arms  for 
$329,  and  Mr.  Ames  swears  he  gave  that 


identical  check  to  Mr.  Kelley  for  Credit 
Mobilier  dividends  and  that  he  drew  the 
money  thereon,  does  my  colleague’s  saying, 
“for  many  years  I have  been  an  honored 
Representative  of  the  people  of  Pennsylvania 
on  this  floor,”  show  that  he  did  not  take  the 
money? 

In  some  cases  good  character  may  be 
allowed  to  create  a doubt;  but  in  this  case, 
if  the  check  drawn  to  “ W.  D.  K.”  or  bearer 
and  paid  by  the  Sergeant-at- Arms  on  the  24th 
of  June,  1868,  was  not  for  Credit  Mobelier 
dividends,  as  Ames  swears  it  was,  should  not 
Mr.  Kelley  state  what  it  was  for,  or  at  least 
give  some  explanation  of  it?  With  his  failure 
to  do  either,  what  is  the  use  of  talking  about 
doubt?  And  how  ungrateful  it  is  for  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pennsylvania,  now  in  the  hour  of 
his  old  friend’s  trial,  to  seek  escape  for  him- 
self in  the  ruin  and  dishonor  of  Oakes  Ames  I 
a man  who,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  him 
in  connection  with  this  investigation,  has  shown 
the  most  singular  persistence  in  trying  to  shield 
all  the  members  of  Congress  involved  with 
him ; this  man  who  was  so  good  and  so  kind 
as  to  loan  Mr.  Kelley  (as  he  alleges)  $1,000 
without  note  or  security  nearly  five  years  ago, 
and  who  has  never  even  inquired  about  either 
principal  or  interest  during  all  that  time! 
How  ungrateful  now  to  turn  and  seek  the  vin- 
dication of  his  own  character  by  destroying 
that  of  his  friend  I 

It  has  been  said  “that  he  who  deserts  a 
friend  deserves  a foe,”  and  if  Mr.  Ames  was 
worthy  to  be  the  companion  and  the  financial 
adviser  of  Mr.  Kelley  for  years,  it  surely  is  not 
becoming  in  my  colleague  now,  when  the  storm 
of  public  wrath  is  gathering,  to  seek  shelter 
for  himself  by  ingratitude  to  his  old  friend  1 

This  investigation  has  engaged  the  earnest 
attention  of  the  country;  not  from  any  thirst 
for  vengeance,  but  because  it  has  involved  the 
honor  of  the  nation,  as  well  as  the  honor  of 
those  who  have  heretofore  stood  high  in  its 
love.  The  record  of  this  day  will  pass  into 
history,  but  it  will  prove  fruitless  of  practical 
good  if  it  do  not  become  to  all  those  in  place 
and  power  a lesson  and  a warning. 


Jurisdiction  of  the  House. 


KEMARKS  OF  HON.  R.  M.  SPEER, 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  same  day,  under  the  ten 
miniites^  rule. 


Mr.  SPEER.  Each  member  of  this  House 
is  this  day  confronted  with  a solemn  duty  ; 
and  however  willing  he  may  be  to  escape  it, 
he  cannot  do  so  without  proving  false  to  him- 
self and  false  to  his  constituents. 

This  duty  is  painful  to  me  almost  beyond 
expression  ; but  I have  lived  long  enough  to 
learn  that  duties  are  not  to  be  avoided 
simply  because  their  performance  is  not  pleas- 
ant. 

I came  to  this  House  two  years  ago  a 
stranger  to  all  the  gentlemen  who  are  impli- 
cated in  the  Credit  Mobilier  investigation  ; 
but  I came  with  the  kindest  prepossessions  in 
favor  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  [Mr. 
Brooks.]  I had  long  heard  of  his  name  and 
his  fame ; I had  learned  to  treasure  them  as 
a part  of  the  history  of  my  party  and  of  my 
country.  Hence,  in  the  examination  of  this 
evidence,  so  far  as  it  affects  him,  I was  a par- 
tial judge  in  his  favor ; but,  step  by  step,  as  I 
advanced,  my  mind  was  brought  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion  which  I am  now  about  to  ex- 
press to  this  House.  I would  intentionally 
add  no  weight  to  the  sorrow  that  crushes  his 
heart,  but  I must  obey  my  convictions  of  duty 
regardless  of  all  personal  considerations. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  but  two  questions 
here:  first,  has  this  House  jurisdiction ? If  it 
10 


has  not,  that  is  an  end  of  the  inquiry.  If  it 
has,  then  what,  if  any,  are  the  offenses  which 
have  been  committed  by  the  gentlemen  named, 
and  are  they  such  as  to  justify  their  expulsion 
or  censure?  For  myself  I have  no  more  doubt 
of  the  power  of  the  House  to  expel  a member 
for  an  offense  committed  before  his  election 
than  I have  of  my  existence.  The  power  is 
expressly  given  in  the  Constitution,  article 
one,  section  five,  which  declares : 

“ Each  House  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  pro- 
ceedings, punish  its  members  for  disorderly  beha- 
vior, and  with  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  expel  a 
member.” 

“Punish”  them  “for  disorderly  behavior” 
committed  when  and  where?  Committed  in 
the  presence  of,  or  d ring  the  session  of  the 
House?  The  Constitution  does  not  say  so. 
Committed  during  the  session  of  Congress,  but 
in  a recess?  The  Constitution  does  not  say  so. 
The  time  when  the  offense  shall  have  been 
committed  is  not  stated.  The  power  is  abso- 
lutely given,  with  this  single  limitation  and 
qualification  of  its  exercise,  that  it  shall  be  by 
a two-thirds  vote  of  the  House.  In  terms  the 
grant  of  power  is  limitless;  but' its  exercise 
should  be  guided  by  a wise,  honest,  and  con- 
scientious discretion.  The  grant  is  dangerous ; 
but  this  fact  appeals  only  for  care  and  caution. 
The  express  grant  of  a power  like  this  is  not  to 


11 


be  rendered  worthless  by  the  charge  that  it  may 
be  abused.  This  House  has  the  absolute  power 
to  expel  a member,  but  the  true  inquiry  in  each 
case  is,  do  the  facts  justify  the  exercise  of  the 
power? 

Now,  in  properly  construing  this  grant  of 
power,  we  should  inquire  what  was  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  given,  what  is  its  use 
and  necessity  ? It  is  a self-protective  power, 
a self-purifying  power.  If,  then,  it  has  been 
given  to  the  House  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
abling it  to  protect  itself  against  unworthy 
members,  I ask  whether  the  House  does  not 
need  this  power  to  protect  itself  from  a mem- 
ber who  may  have  become  unworthy  yester- 
day, as  well  as  against  a member  who  has 
become  unworthy  to-day?  Shall  the  date  of 
the  crime  measure  its  moral  guilt  or  turpitude ; 
and  if  not,  shall  the  date  of  its  commission 
measure  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  this 
House?  I do  not  think  so.  Let  us  look  for 
one  moment  at  two  or  three  illustrations  to  test 
this  doctrine  of  jurisdiction.  J[f  I understand 
the  position  of  the  learned  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  Beck]  and  others  who  deny  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  House,  it  is  that  if  a man 
on  the  last  hour  of  the  last  night  before  the 
election  should  commit  a rape,  or  a burglary, 
or  a murder,  and  in  virtue  of  an  election  held 
the  next  day  should  come  into  this  House,  we 
are  powerless  to  protect  ourselves  against  his 
presence  ; but  if  the  offense  was  not  committed 
until  the  moment  after  the  ballot-box  was  < 
closed,  then  we  can  take  jurisdiction  and  expel 
him. 

The  decision  of  Chief  Justice  Shaw,  cited 
by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Butler]  last  evening,  states  that  the  legis- 
lative body  has  undoubted  power  to  expel  a 
man  who  has  an  infectious  disease,  and  this 
the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  admits  ; but  if 
the  doctrine  of  my  learned  friend  from  Ken- 
tucky is  true,  the  man  must  have  contracted 
the  infectious  disease  after  his  election  to  give 
the  House  power  to  expel  him.  If  the  disease 
had  been  contraced  before  his  election  the 
House  would  be  powerless.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker, 

I draw  an  exact  analogy  between  this  illus- 
tration of  an  infectious  disease  and  the  crime 
with  which  these  gentlemen  here  are  charged. 
We  have  here  an  offense  not  dying  at  the 


moment  it  is  committed,  but  the  fruits  of  which 
are  intended  to  run  through  the  congressional 
career  of  the  man  who  commits  it — intended 
to  control  his  voice  and  his  vote  on  this  floor 
as  long  as  he  remains  a member  ; month  after 
month  and  year  after  year  he  puts  into  his 
pocket  the  price  for  which  he  has  agreed  to 
surrender  his  independence  and  honor  as  a 
Representative,  in  precisely  the  same  way  as 
the  man  who  contracts  an  infectious  disease 
on  the  night  before  the  election  may  carry  it 
with  him  for  one,  two,  or  three  years  after- 
ward during  his  occupancy  of  a seat  here.  The 
member  makes  a contract  for  a bribe,  and  sits 
here  by  the  side  of  my  honorable  friend  from 
Kentucky  with  the  gold  which  is  the  price 
of  his  dishonor  in  his  pocket ; yet,  according 
to  the  view  of  my  friend,  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  are  powerless  ! The  corrupt 
bargain  may  have  been  made  before  the  elec- 
tion and  carefully  concealed  until  after;  and 
yet  this  concealment  saves  the  guilty  party 
from  defeat  perhaps  at  the  polls ; and  the 
offense  fortunately  antedating  the  election, 
strips  this  House  of  all  jurisdiction  of  the 
offender. 

This  is  not  the  case  of  a criminal  prosecu- 
tion ; it  is  the  cause  of  the  people — -a  cause 
involving  the  honor  and  the  integrity  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  the  character 
and  fair  fame  of  the  whole  American  people. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  there  is  any  doubt  about  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  House  in  this  case  I think 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Brooks] 
himself  has  settled  that  question.  Mr.  Brooks 
rose  in  his  seat  on  the  17th  of  December  last 
to  a question  of  privilege,  and  in  defining  his 
position  in  relation  to  the  Union  Pacific,  rail- 
road and  the  Credit  Mobilier,  with  uplifted 
hand  and  eye  used  these  words:  ““  But  as  a 
member  of  Congress  and  as  a member  of  one 
of  the  most  important  committees  of  the  House 
in  which  millions  of  dollars  are  directly  or  in- 
directly pending,  if  what  Mr.  McComb  says  be 
true,  I am  unlit  to  be  a member  of  this  House 
and  ought  to  be  expelled  not  only  from  this 
House,  but  from  all  association  with  decent 
men  here  or  elsewhere.” 

I ask  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr. 
Beck,]  who  is  in  his  seat,  for  what  purpose 
or  by  whose  authority  it  is  he  interposes  the 


12 


plea  of  jurisdiction  here  when  the  jurisdiction 
and  the  necessity  for  its  exercise,  if  the  facts  be 
found,  are  expressly  conceded  by  Mr.  Brooks 
himself?  That  he  admits  the  right  and  the 
power  of  this  House  to  expel  him  if  the  facts 
alleged  against  him  be  true  his  careful  and 
elaborate  speech  made  upon  this  very  subject 
most  clearly  shows. 

Next  we  come  to  the  facts.  I have  not  time 
to  discuss  them.  I agree  with  the  committee 
in  their  finding  and  recommendation  as  to  Mr. 
Ames  and  Mr.  Brooks,  and  I agree  with  Mr. 
Brooks,  the  facts  being  found,  that  they  pre- 
sent a proper  case  for  expulsion.  I say  fur- 
ther, while  I have  read  and  reread  with  anxious 
care  this  morning  the  testimony  in  relation  to 
the  gentlemen  implicated,  so  far  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Dawes]  and 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Sco- 
field] are  concerned,  I cannot  and  will  not 
vote  either  to  expel  or  to  censure  either  of 
them.  I owe  them  nothing  personally  or 
politically ; but  I owe  it  to  my  conviction  as  a 
man,  I owe  it  to  my  sense  of  duty,  I owe  it 
to  the  cause  of  truth  to  say,  after  the  most 


careful  examination  of  the  testimony  and  the 
facts  in  relation  to  them,  I believe  them  to  be 
innocent  of  corrupt  intent  or  conduct.  But 
when  I come  to  Mr.  Kelley  and  to  Mr.  Gar- 
field I say  with  the  same  honesty  of  purpose 
and  the  same  sincerity  of  conviction  I cannot 
believe  them  guiltless.  They  never  paid  a 
dollar.  Mr.  Kelley  received  $1,079  in  divi- 
dends. For  what?  For  nothing.  Without 
the  investment  of  a single  dollar  he  became  in 
six  months  the  owner  of  a thousand  dollars 
of  stock  in  the  Credit  Mobilier,  worth  three 
or  four  thousand  dollars,  and  he  pocketed 
$1,079  in  cash  besides. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Wote. 

After  Mr.  Speer  introduced  his  resolution 
and  the  House  voted  to  consider  it,  he  offered 
half  of  his  hour  to  Mr.  Kelley.  The  latter 
rose  and  stated  that  he  had  not  been  heard 
before  the  committee,  and  did  not  wish  to 
speak  until  after  Mr.  Speer  had  spoken.  In 
order  that  no  injustice  may  be  done  him,  his 
defense,  as  made  by  himself,  at  the  time 
chosen  by  himself,  is  hereto  annexed. 


REPLY 


OP 

HON.  WILLIAM  D.  KELLEY 

To  the  speech  of  lion.  R.  Milton  Speer,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives on  the  evening  of  February  27,  1873. 


Mr.  KELLEY.  I hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  for 
the  calm  and  dispassionate  hearing  of  my 
judges,  I shall  detain  the  House  from  its  legit- 
imate business  for  a very  brief  time.  The 
occasion  is  one  of  too  much  dignity,  of  too 
much  importance  to  me  and  my  family,  to 
permit  me  to  divert  it  to  personal  or  partisan 
discussion.  I shall,  therefore,  not  follow  or 
attempt  to  reply  to  the  remarks  of  my  young 
colleague  who  brought  my  name  thus  before 
this  House  and  the  country.  There  are  those 
on  both  sides  of  this  House  who  have  asso- 
ciated with  me  for  twelve  long  years.  The 
4th  of  March,  now  rapidly  approaching,  will 
mark  twelve  years  since  I became  a member- 
elect  of  the  American  Congress,  and  the  4th 
of  next  July  will  mark  twelve  years  since  when, 
on  the  threshold  of  the  most  eventful  period 
of  my  country’s  history,  I took  the  oath  of 
office.  Since  then  the  senior  members  of 
yonder  side  of  the  House,  as  well  as  many  of 
the  gentlemen  around  me  here,  have  been  my 
almost  constant  associates ; and,  sir,  were  it 
proper  I should  adduce  witnesses  here  and 
nov/,  I would  invoke,  irr  spite  of  past  partisan 
or  personal  controversies,  the  testimony  of 
each  and  all  of  them  to  my  integrity ; but  it  is 
not  proper. 

My  case  is  not  ready  for  argument.  My 
witnesses  have  not  been  heard.  The  commit- 
tee acting  as  a grand  inquest  ignored  the 
charges  against  me ; and  yet  I am  showing 
cause  why  I should  not  respond  by  standing 
up  for  sentence.  It  is  not  proper,  therefore, 
that  I should  now  invoke  your  testimony.  I 
may,'  however,  should  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  so  deny  me  the  privileges  ac- 
corded to  the  veriest  criminal  brought  before 
any  of  the  courts  of  the  country — may  and 
13 


will  teach  the  boy  who  bears  my  name,  when 
he  shall  meet  any  of  you,  to  challenge  you  as 
to  the  blamelessness  of  my  life  among  you, 
as  to  whether  my  habits  have  been  such  as  to 
cause  suspicion  of  extravagant  expenditure 
or  of  the  undue  pursuit  of  wealth.  It  shall 
be  his  privilege  to  ask  from  any  and  all  of 
you  whether  his  father  passed  his  life  in 
your  presence  in  luxurious  or  riotous  living, 
whether  he  neglected  his  public  duties  for  the 
pursuit  of  gain,  whether  his  habits  were  not 
unostentatious,  inexpensive,  laborious,  and 
whether  for  the  best  twelve  years  of  his  life  he 
did  not  place,  not  only  before  him,  but  before 
his  associates  in  every  walk  of  life,  the  ex- 
ample of  a life  of  labor  and  self-denial. 

What  is  now  announced  as  the  charge 
against  me  ? That  I have  accepted  $329  as  a 
bribe.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  last  ten  years  have 
been  said  to  be  years  of  extravagant  ex- 
penditure and  profligate  outlay  of  land  and 
money.  I was  for  four  years  a member  of  your 
Naval  Committee  when  it  was  considering 
questions  involving  contracts  for  millions  and 
tens  and  thirties  of  millions  of  dollars,  but 
who  here  or  elsewhere  ever  heard  my  name 
connected  with  the  profits  of  a contract  or  the 
allegation  that  one  dollar  of  my  country’s 
money  not  received  as  salary  for  my  services 
during  that  period  stuck  to  my  hands  ? I have 
been  for  four  years  a member  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means ; a committee,  sir, 
whose  decisions  touch  more  largely  the  pecun- 
iary condition  of  the  country  and  the  people 
thereof  than  those  of  any  other  committee  of 
the  House.  On  what  question  before  that 
committee  have  I reserved  my  opinion  until 
parties  in  interest  might  confer  with  me  and 
determine  my  vote  ? Have  I ever  failed  to*  be 


14 


outspoken  on  any  question  before  that  or  any 
other  committee  of  this  House,  or  the  House 
itself?  It  has  been  sometimes  complained  of 
me  that  I have  been  rash  in  the  utterances  of 
ray  opinions  and  imperative  in  ray  demands  ; 
but  1 have  yet  to  hear  for  the  first  time  the 
suggestion  that  my  opinions  have  halted  until  I 
could  adjust  them  to  the  interest  of  others,  nor 
do  I believe  there  is  a member  of  this  House, 
or  any  one  who  has  been  a member  since  the 
Thirty-Seventh  Congress  organized,  that  ever 
entertained  such  a suspicion.  In  1845,  or  early 
in  1846,  I began  to  devote  the  leisure  allowed 
me  by  my  professional  labors  to  bringing  before 
the  people  of  Philadelphia,  and  through  them 
to  the  attention  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
the  project  of  connecting  the  waters  of  Lake 
Michigan  with  those  of  the  Columbia  river  and 
Puget  sound. 

Asa  Whitney  had  fascinated  me  by  the 
grandeur  of  his  scheme.  It  involved  not  only 
the  construction  of  a railroad  across  the  desert, 
but  the  peopling  of  that  then  almost  unexplored 
region  with  the  poor  of  the  world.  Connected 
with  Mr.  Whitney’s  scheme  for  that  great 
national  and  commercial  enterprise  was  the 
magnificent  and  humane  theory  of  bringing 
from  the  oppressed  lands  beyond  the  Atlantic, 
and  gathering  from  the  crowded  cities  of  our 
own  eastern  States,  each  year  a fresh  array  of 
laborers  to  cut  the  forests  from  around  the 
base  of  lake  Michigan  ; to  move  forward  with 
the  construction  of  that  railroad,  and  to  leave 
behind,  as  its  guards  for  the  present  and  its 
patrons  in  the  future,  colonies  each  year,  so 
that  when  it  should  be  finished  the  mails  to 
and  from  British  India  would  drop  their  fat- 
ness in  our  land  as  they  passed  through  the 
then  thriving  towns  and  cities  of  the  Rocky 
mountain  region.  And  from  that  day  to  this 
no  scheme  which  promised  success  and  pro- 
posed to  unite  the  ports  of  the  Atlantic  with 
those  of  the  Pacific  has  failed  to  receive  my 
early,  ray  ardent,  my  most  liberal  support. 

We  have  granted  lands  by  millions  of  acres. 
But  who  has  said,  who  believes — nay,  sir,  who 
suspects,  that  one  acre  of  those  millions  or 
the  proceeds  thereof  have  lodged  with  William 
D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  or  any  member 
of  his  family.  No  man,  sir;  for  ray  life  has 
given  the  lie  to  such  suspicions.  Says  the  reso- 
lution, he  has  been  speculating  in  the  stock  of 
the  Credit  Mobilier  of  America.  I denounce 
the  allegation  as  false  and  unfounded.  In 
the  twelve  years  that  I have  been  a member 
of  Congress  I have  bought  one  bond,  not  in 
ray  own  person,  but  through  my  counsel, 
Henry  C.  Townsend,  of  Philadelphia,  and 
through  the  same  hand,  without  ever  having 
seen  it,  have  sold  it ; and  if  that  be  specula- 
tion in  stocks  and  bonds,  then  have  I erred  in 
denouncing  that  allegation. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I have  said,  the  time 
has  not  come  for  arguing  my  case  ; nor  do  I 


mean  to  do  it.  But  a becoming  respect  to  this 
House — and  I desire  to  treat  it  with  all  due 
respect — requires  me  in  suggesting  the  pro- 
priety of  pausing  long  enough  to  make  some 
inquisition  into  the  correctness  of  the  findings 
of  the  committee,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  me, 
to  say  that  if  I have  owned  Credit  Mobilier 
stock  I have  not  known  it.  If  I have  received 
the  dividends  of  Credit  Mobilier,  I have  not  so 
understood  it.  That  I have  owed  Oakes  Ames 
$1,000  borrowed  money,  I have  believed.  I 
have  given  the  committee  evidence  in  answer 
to  the  question  whether  it  was  not  a little  re- 
markable that  I should  permit  the  loan  to 
stand  so  long — evidence  very  painful  to  me 
to  disclose,  but  which  in  vindication  of  my 
good  name  I gladly  disclosed  ; that  from  cir- 
cumstances involving  no  culpability  on  my 
part  my  life  during  my  whole  congressional 
career  has  been  a terrible  struggle  against 
adverse  fortune — a struggle  which  has  only 
been  relieved  by  the  kindness  of  generous 
friends  who  believed  that  if  I could  hold  on 
to  the  building  lots  and  land  I had  purchased 
with  ray  professional  eavings  they  would  be 
reimbursed  and  there  would  be  something  for 
the  support  of  ray  widow  and  children  if  I 
should  be  summoned  hence. 

And  in  making  that  statement  I have  an- 
swered satisfactorily  to  my  own  conscience  and 
to  my  own  judgment  for  the  delay  that  might 
otherwise  have  looked  suspicious. 

Before  your  committee,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  1 
am  permitted  to  appear  before  it,  this  will  be 
among  the  evidence  I shall  adduce : that  on 
the  7th  of  June,  1869 — mark  you,  gentlemen, 
mark  you,  Mr.  Speaker — I am -charged  with 
holding  since  1868  Credit  Mobilier  stock  or 
with  having  it  held  in  trust  for  me,  and  with 
receiving  from  it  or  being  entitled  to  receive 
dividends  from  it  so  enormous  that  they  alone 
should  have  admonished  me  that  the  transac- 
tion involved  in  its  purchase  was  not  fair  and 
honest — I say,  sir,  that  among  the  evidence  I 
shall  adduce  will  be  the  .officers  of  the  Trades- 
men’s Bank  of  Philadelphia  to  prove  that  on 
the  7th  of  June,  1869,  there  was  withdrawn 
from  a box,  long  on  deposit  in  that  institution, 
ten  $1,000  Union  Pacific  railroad  bonds;  that 
they  were  carried  by  their  owner  to  the  parlor 
of  the  president  of  the  Fidelity  Trust  and 
Insurance  Company  of  Philadelphia,  and  in 
my  absence  left  there  as  collateral  security  for 
a loan  to  be  made  to  me  by  that  company  of 
$7,000  at  six  per  cent. 

The  understanding  was  with  Hon.  N.  B. 
Browne,  the  president,  that  I was  to  pay  the 
institution  its  fees  for  holding  these  bonds  as 
a safe  deposit,  and  that  I was  to  pay  them 
six  per  cent.,  and  five  per  cent,  to  the  owner 
of  the  bonds  on  whatever  sum  was  loaned 
thereon,  so  that  the  $7,000  was  to  cost  me,  as 
long  as  I retained  it  as  a loan,  eleven  per  cent. , 
and  ten  dollars  per  annum  as  a fee  for  guaran- 


15 


tying  the  safety  of  the  bonds.  And  the  records 
of  Philadelphia  will  show  that  on  the  next  day, 
the  8th  of  June,  18G9,  I put  on  record  a mort- 
gage on  unimproved  and  somewhat  encumbered 
real  estate  to  indemnify  the  owner  of  these 
bonds  against  loss  by  their  use  as  collateral 
security  for  me.  Sir,  if  I had  known  that  I was 
the  owner  of  stock  and  bonds  of  the  Union 
Pacific  railroad,  I should  hardly  in  my  poverty 
have  paid  $360  a year  for  a loan  of  such  secur- 
ities in  sufficieiJt  amount  to  save  my  property. 

Sir,  this  will  be  among  the  testimony  that  I 
shall  offer,  and  the  witnesses  referred  to  are 
illustrative  of  the  character  of  the  many  wit- 
nesses I shall  produce. 

Sir,  I pray  nothing  from  the  favor  of  my 
associates  on  either  side  of  the  House.  I ask 
them  to  deal  out  nothing  but  equal  justice  to 
me,  and  in  their  own  behalf  I ask  them  to  do 


it  according  to  law.  That  is  all  I wish.  What 
becomes  of  me  is  of  little  importance  now. 
They  who  were  old  men  when  I entered  this 
House,  Stevens,  Wickliffe,  Crittenden,  and 
others,  have  long  slept  the  quiet  sleep  of  death. 
They  who  are  now  the  white-headed  leaders 
of  the  House  to-day  were  in  the  vigor  of  man- 
hood when  we  first  answered  the  roll-call.  I 
felt  myself  then  to  be  a young  man ; but  with 
three  years  of  broken  health  I approach  the 
threshold  of  threescore  years  feeling  that  the 
strength  which  might  add  another  ten  years  to 
life  is  not  accorded  to  me.  It  is  not  therefore 
for  myself  that  I plead  when  I ask  you  to  main- 
tain the  law  and  to  give  to  me  as  a member  of 
the  American  Congress  those  privileges  which 
are  secured  to  the  vagrant,  to  him  who  is 
charged  with  petit  larceny,  or  to  the  assassin 
who  has  deliberately  murdered  his  brother  man. 


